1000+ images about Delicate Particle Logic on Pinterest | Left out, Otto hahn and Organic chemistry Forward Lise Meitner was a physicist who was part of the team that discovered nuclear fission. Her colleague, Otto Hahn, was awarded the Nobel Prize and many believe Meitner is one of the most glaring examples of women's scientific achievement overlooked by the Nobel committee. When she was invited to join the Manhattan Project her response was "I will have nothing to do with a bomb!" See More ZEN PENCILS » 152. ON THE SHOULDERS OF GIANTS: The science all-stars poster 152. ON THE SHOULDERS OF GIANTS: The science all-stars poster by Gav on June 3, 2014 Chapter: Comic So I originally just planned to do a poster featuring Newton’s famous quote along with the top 10 scientists in history. As I kept reading about all these great people, I kept adding more and more characters until it spiralled into the 47 people you see above. There’s no real criteria I had when choosing people, and being just a science fan and not an actual scientist, I’m sure I’m missing some important figures.

Please share in the comments some of your favourite scientists that I haven’t included, especially if you know of any more women … it’s a bit of a sausage fest up there. I’m open to updating the poster with your suggestions. Without further ado, roll call please: UPDATE: I’ve updated the poster with five additional scientists, chosen from your suggestions: Ada Lovelace (1815-1852): Mathematician and world’s first computer programmer. Gregor Mendel (1822-1884): The father of genetics. Dmitri Mendeleev (1834-1907): Chemist and inventor of the Periodic Table of Elements. Lise Meitner (1878 -1968): Helped split the atom. Shockingly overlooked for a Nobel Prize. Chien-Shiung Wu (1912-1997): Physicist who worked on the Manhattan Project. Nicknamed the ‘Chinese Marie Curie’. It’s now also available to BUY AS A POSTER , including a white variant version! Thanks for all the suggestions. Democritus (460-370BC): Father of science.

Founded the atomic theory of the universe. Greatest of the ancient Ionian scientists, who were the first to use experiments and attempted to understand nature without invoking the divine. Scientific progress halted in the western world for over 1500 years after the Ionians works were destroyed and suppressed in favour of the teachings of Socrates, Plato and Aristotle. Archimedes (287BC-212BC): Antiquity’s greatest mathematician, scientist and all-round genius. Popularised the word ‘Eureka’ when he jumped out of his bathtub and ran naked on the streets shouting it after he figured out a problem. Invented super cool weapons like the Archimedes Claw and solar death ray (although the latter was ‘busted’ on Mythbusters). Eratosthenes (276-194BC): Founded geography. Chief librarian of Library of Alexandria. First person to measure circumference of the Earth (as told by Carl Sagan ). Zhang Heng (78-139): Astronomer, mathematician, inventor, philosopher, geographer and artist. The greatest of the ancient Chinese scientists. Galen of Pergamon (129-216): Greatest doctor of antiquity.

Pioneered medicine, anatomy, neurology, physiology and philosophy. Name most resembling a Game of Thrones character. Hypatia (350-415): Dominated philosophy, mathematics and science at a time when women where not known as scholars. One of the last great thinkers of ancient Alexandria. An outspoken non-believer, she was brutally murdered by a mob of religious fanatics. Rachel Weisz played Hypatia in the 2009 Spanish film Agora . Ibn al-Haytham (Alhazen) (965-1040AD): Father of optics and the scientific method. Invented pinhole camera. Discovered laws of refraction. Often referred to as the first ‘true scientist’. Johannes Gutenberg (1395-1468): Invented the the most important invention in the history of the world, the movable-type printing press, which allowed ideas and knowledge to be spread to the masses for the first time. Leonardo da Vinci (1452-1519): Renaissance super hero. Scientist, sculptor, inventor, engineer … dabbled in painting too.

So brilliant and ahead of his time that he might have been an alien disguised as a human. Nicolaus Copernicus (1473-1543): Started the scientific revolution when he proposed a radical view of the solar system where the Earth and other planets revolved around the sun. Known as the heliocentric “sun-centred” system, it pooped on Ptolemy’s Earth-centered model which had been accepted for nearly 2000 years. Knowing how much trouble his findings would cause, Copernicus delayed publishing his work for 36 years. Giordano Bruno (1548-1600): Astronomer and philosopher. Passionately defended Copernicus’ heliocentric model and insisted the Bible’s astronomical teachings not be taken literally. He was sentenced to death for his efforts and burnt alive. When sentenced, he said to his judges “Perhaps your fear in passing judgment on me is greater than mine in receiving it.” Galileo Galilei (1564-1642): Astronomer, physicist and philosopher. Further perfected the scientific method.

Pioneering works with telescopes revolutionised astronomy and proved Copernicus’ argument that the planets orbited the sun. Galileo’s subsequent book championing the Copernicus’ heliocentric model resulted in him being charged with heresy by the Inquisition and sentenced to life in prison. Johannes Kepler (1571-1630): Furthered the work of Copernicus by discovering the three laws of planetary motion , which explained how the universe works. René Descartes (1596-1650): Father of modern philosophy. His book Meditations on First Philosophy is STILL used as a standard text for students. Also made huge contributions to mathematics and physics. “I think, therefore I am.” Isaac Newton (1643-1727): The Michael Jordan of science. Laid foundation for modern physical optics. Invented calculus. His Principia, which outlined his laws of motion and universal gravitation, is one of the greatest individual achievements in history and laid the groundwork for modern science.

Modest despite his titanic intellect and achievements, Newton wrote the sentence “If I have seen further it is by standing on ye shoulders of giants” in a letter to Robert Hooke in 1676. He was paraphrasing the words of Bernard of Chartres, a 12th century French philosopher. Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790): Inventor, scientist, writer, businessman, musician, celebrity. Oh yeah, Founding Father of America too. Henry Cavendish (1731-1810): The greatest experimental scientist of his day. Discovered hydrogen. Helped usher in the Chemical Revolution and most famously measured the mass of the Earth, known as the Cavendish Experiment. Antoine Lavoisier (1743-1794): The ‘Father of Modern Chemistry’. Raised chemistry to the same standards as experimental physics were held to at the time. Michael Faraday (1791-1867): One of the greatest scientists of the 19th century. Pioneering work with electromagnetism. Charles Darwin (1809-1882): Developed the theory of evolution by natural selection.

Shocked the world by claiming humans evolved from lesser creatures over millions of years instead of being created by a God. (Shout out to Alfred Russell Wallace, who independently came up with the same theory) Louis Pasteur (1822-1895): Chemist and microbiologist. Discovered the principles of vaccination, fermentation and pasteurisation. Proved the germ theory of disease. Developed vaccines for rabies and anthrax. His name is on your milk carton. James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879): Discovered electromagnetic theory. The 19th century scientist who had the biggest influence on the 20th century and ranked as one of the top three physicists ever, along with Newton and Einstein. Carl Sagan explained the importance of Maxwell in this chapter from his book, The Demon-Haunted World. Nikola Tesla (1856-1943): Inventor, scientist, electrical engineer. The greatest geek who ever lived. Perfected the use of Alternating Current and his AC system forms the basis for all modern power generation and distribution. Sigmund Freud (1856-1939): Neurologist and inventor of psychoanalysis.

Max Planck (1858-1947): Physicist and originator of quantum theory. George Washington Carver (1864-1943): Scientist, botanist, inventor. Known for his agricultural advances and promoting alternatives to cotton that would help sustain poorer farmers. Marie Curie (1867-1934): Physicist who pioneered work in radioactivity. Discovered two new elements, radium and polonium. Winner of two Nobel prizes. First woman to win a Nobel prize. Henrietta Swan Leavitt (1868-1921): Astronomer. Pioneering work in measuring the brightness of stars. Her findings would greatly help the work of Edwin Hubble. Ernest Rutherford (1871-1937): The father of nuclear physics and greatest experimental scientist since Faraday. Albert Einstein (1879-1955): Theoretical physicist and most influential scientist of the 20th century. In his miracle year of 1905, he published four papers, including his special theory of relativity, which changed our fundamental understanding of the universe. He was 26.

Alexander Fleming (1881-1955): Bacteriologist and discoverer of penicillin. Niels Bohr (1885-1962): Leading figure in quantum physics. Erwin Schrödinger (1887-1961): Theoretical physicist known for his work with wave theory and quantum mechanics. Also an expert in philosophy, literature and history. Cat hater. Chandrasekhara Venkata Raman (1888-1970): Physicist who discovered light-scattering effect. First Asian to win a science Nobel Prize. Edwin Hubble (1889-1953): Astronomer. First to discover that the universe is expanding, therefore providing evidence of the Big Bang theory. Linus Pauling (1901-1994): Influential chemist and peace activist. Helped found quantum chemistry and molecular biology. Winner of two Nobel prizes, the second a peace prize for his efforts in banning nuclear weapons testing. Barbara McClintock (1902-1992): Pioneering work in genetics.

She was ahead of her time, with her research being largely ignored when it was published in the 1940s and 50s. Only after the discovery of DNA in the late 60s, was her work found again and celebrated. Rachel Carson (1907-1964): Marine biologist, writer and conservationist. Her book Silent Spring, sparked the environmental movement. Jaques-Yves Cousteau (1910-1997): Adventurer, ocean explorer, inventor, filmmaker, soldier, spy, real-life Aquaman. Pioneered marine exploration and conservation. His documentary on underwater exploration The Silent World, won the 1956 Cannes film festival Palme d’or. Alan Turing (1912 -1954): Father of computers and artificial intelligence. Codebreaker extraordinaire. During WWII, Turing and a team of code breakers helped crack the German Enigma code. Turing was prosecuted for being homosexual in 1952 and was subsequently stripped of his government clearance. He was forced to endure chemical castration as ‘treatment’ to avoid being imprisoned. Two years later he committed suicide.

Last year, the British Government issued a posthumous Royal Pardon to Turing (just a tad late, huh?). His story is being told in the upcoming movie The Imitation Game , with Benedict Cumberbatch playing Turing. Francis Crick (1916-2004) & James Dewey Watson (1928-): Together, they determined the molecular structure of DNA, which is one of the most important discoveries in science. (Shout out to Maurice Wilkins who also contributed to the DNA discovery. The three of them all shared the 1962 Nobel Prize in Medicine.) Richard Feynman (1918-1988): Revolutionised quantum electrodynamics. Raconteur. Adventurer. Bongo enthusiast . Rosalind Franklin (1920-1958): Biophysicist. Her data regarding the structure of DNA played a hugely important role in the work of Crick and Watson. Jane Goodall (1934): Pioneered studies on the wild chimpanzees of Gombe National Park in Tanzania for more than fifty years, with her findings changing the way we view our closest living relatives in the animal kingdom and ourselves.

Currently spreading the message of conservation and peace across the world as a UN Messenger of Peace. Stephen Hawking (1942-): Theoretical physicist, cosmologist, populariser of science. Pioneering work in black holes. Tim-Berners Lee (1955-): Invented the world wide web. ‘Nuff said. Twitter handle: @timberners_lee Men more evolved? Y chromosome study stirs debate, page 11 Men more evolved? Y chromosome study stirs debate page: 11 reply to post by Illusionsaregrander You are correct that it does mean that men are scoring higher on average than women. But what does that bit of data say? It says that men are scoring higher on average than women. That men are inherently better at math? On the Whole, Yes. that is what the data says. That women will never perform as well as them? Who is to say what the future will bring? That SAT scores are great predictors of actual grades in college in math? They are a measure of Mathematical ability (The math portion at least). Basing predictions on this is a slippery slope.

I dont want to make any assumptions here, I am curious as to why this bit of data is so significant to you. I am making an argument that men and women have different strengths and weaknesses. Refuting the position that men and women are the same. -Edrick reply to post by vkey08 SO WHAT? OK men may be better at mathematics, whoo hoo.. All that really means is that men can add and subtract, and divide and multiply better which has been proven though history that they indeed know how to multiply, and in many different ways. I'm glad you agree. Women score higher on English and Language skills. Does that mean that they are inherently "better" than men? NO You are correct. This is the problem with jumping into the middle of an argument... I never said that men are better than women. I DID state that men invent more, discover more, and lead more than women. This does not make them "Better" as you would say, but I never held that position in the first place. Both sexes have their weaknesses, and their strengths Yes, I agree completely. whether or not one is better or not or inherently "more intelligent" has yet to be proven in my eyes.

By every metric we currently have to determine intelligence, men outperform women, on the whole. (Edit: Perhaps a better way of putting it is that men are more CAPABLE of High intelligence than women) This does not speak for individuals, of course... but the averages ARE there. -Edrick reply to post by Gorman91 Dude, maybe you're too old to know. I only recently graduated. And it was a joke. if anything, those statistics prove how much better kids cheat at. That's the truth. I can accept your response... misunderstandings are common in text based discussions. Perhaps framing your "Jokes" with some helpful emoticons can alleviate these misunderstandings in the future. Anywho, I ask again, do so explain the grammar school. Why do newer generations perform so differently than older ones? It could possibly be the evolution of humanity... after all, we see the evolution of the Y chromosome, and this may share information with the X chromosome, it is not to much to presume that children on the whole are getting smarter. (Or at the very least, as you stated... better at cheating!) Also, calculus can be used here. The graph marks scores per year, and each gender.

There is nothing wrong here. time versus quantity. Thank you, but no, you are wrong. The data sets are not derivative of each other, crafting a Function of one upon the other is not applicable. You *COULD* use calculus... but the answer would be a meaningless prediction of things that we have no way of proving. And the reason that last part relates to our argument is that men and woman CAN now do pretty much each others things via technology. Yes, I understand your point, but you would not say that men are stronger than bears, because we have forklifts and cranes. Men are still weaker than bears... it is the FORKLIFT AND CRANE that are stronger than bears. You get my point? reply to post by Edrick men make folk lifts, making themselves stronger than bears. Just like a crow making a spear makes it stronger than a bug. Now lets review calculus, shall we? if I map the graph of males over time versus their grades, this is a differentiable curve. If I replace the males with female grades, it's just as differentiable. Mapping the derivative shows the instantaneous rate of change at that moment in time.

Mapping the derivative of the derivative curve is the 2nd derivative, which shows the future rates of the curve in a constant rate. The results of each curve can be compared with each other. ergo, the graph can be used in calculus. The end. Things do not evolve in such short time. Evolution takes thousands of years to millions of years. the last change to humanity was 50,000 years ago when modern behavior began. In fact, evolution biologists agree that the larger your population, the less likely evolution occurs. genetic drift will occur, but over the course of dozens of generations. ergo, your wrong. reply to post by Gorman91 Now lets review calculus, shall we? if I map the graph of males over time versus their grades, this is a differentiable curve. If I replace the males with female grades, it's just as differentiable. Mapping the derivative shows the instantaneous rate of change at that moment in time. Mapping the derivative of the derivative curve is the 2nd derivative, which shows the future rates of the curve in a constant rate. The results of each curve can be compared with each other. ergo, the graph can be used in calculus. The end.

You WILL get results if you do this.... (Apply calculus to this data), but will their predictions be accurate? Forecasting trends is easy... Forecasting trends ACCURATELY is not. Do you think that nothing could POSSIBLY happen to make those scores go down? Split further? Go up faster than your Plot accounts for? My point, was that the derivation of the data using calculus would not AUTOMATICALLY be accurate. Things do not evolve in such short time. Evolution takes thousands of years to millions of years. the last change to humanity was 50,000 years ago when modern behavior began. In fact, evolution biologists agree that the larger your population, the less likely evolution occurs. genetic drift will occur, but over the course of dozens of generations. ergo, your wrong. The FACTORS that influence evolution are the main limiting factor to the rate of change in a population. If we were to allow the reproduction of ONLY the top 1% of the population (In terms of intelligence) then the average intelligence of the population would increase rather quickly. This is merely a metaphor to prove exception to your statement. But my presumption of the "Increasing" intelligence of children was just that, a PRESUMPTION.

As you can see here: It could possibly be the evolution of humanity... after all, we see the evolution of the Y chromosome, and this may share information with the X chromosome, it is not to much to presume that children on the whole are getting smarter. (Or at the very least, as you stated... better at cheating!) I never claimed that this *WAS* the case, but merely was a hypothesis that *COULD* explain the observation. Ergo... I am not wrong, because it was an opinion. -Edrick On November 13, 1938, Hahn met secretly with Meitner in Copenhagen. At her suggestion, Hahn and Strassmann performed further tests on a uranium product they thought was radium. When they found that it was in fact barium, they published their results in Naturwissenschaften (January 6, 1939). Simultaneously, Meitner and Frisch explained (and named) nuclear fission, using Bohr's "liquid drop" model of the nucleus; their paper appeared in Nature (February 11, 1939).

The proof of fission required Meitner's and Frisch's physical insight as much as the chemical findings of Hahn and Strassmann. But the separation of the former collaborators and Lise's scientific and actual exile led to the Nobel committee's failure to understand her part in the work. Later Hahn rationalized her exclusion and others buried her role ever deeper. The Nobel "mistake," never acknowledged, was partly rectified in 1966, when Hahn, Meitner, and Strassmann were awarded the U.S. Fermi Prize. Fortunately for this argument, she was relatively contemporary. So we not only have evidence that she was denied credit for her work, but we also have evidence she actually did the work. One of the nice things for you in your arguments, is that you are making a logical leap by saying that lack of evidence means the thing for which evidence is lacking is non-existent. Lack of evidence only means lack of evidence. And, I am sure you know this. Originally posted by Edrick Prove that women have had an equal contribution to science, mathematics, engineering, etc... as men. That would be impossible. They have not. Whether or not they COULD have is another issue.

But in fact, they have not made an equal contribution. Nor have they had anything nearly approaching equal access to education, or the right to work outside of the home. Lack of equal contribution could mean lack of ability, inherently, or it could be lack of opportunity. Which do you suppose it is? Originally posted by Edrick Prove that men have NOT done most all of the work to *forward* society. is that clear enough for you? No, actually it isnt. What does "forwarding" society mean to you? Keeping children alive to become adult humans, so physically forwarding society? Literature? Art? Music? Math? Science? Medicine? All of the above? None of the above? Or you dont really have to clarify. I know you are trying to argue that because men have had more input into maths, science engineering etc., that they have done most all of the work. But you are wrong. Technological innovation requires more than just intellect. It requires leisure. Men by and large have gotten the glory. They are credited with the forwarding of our technology.

But this overlooks the vast numbers of men and women that had to be relegated to "support operations" to afford this privileged class of mostly males the opportunity (leisure) to pursue philosophy, and all its offspring, math, engineering and science. None of what we have today would have happened without all of us, male/female, leisured/working class, and it is sort of arrogant to give all the credit to those who had both talent and opportunity to sit down and make the connections. The person who is most instrumental in creating the society we have today is the person, (or persons) whomever they were, male or female or both, who figured out how to domesticate plants. Agriculture is the one invention that made all the rest of this possible, and that person(s) is lost to us forever. I dont think we should take so narrow a view of progress that we give all the glory to those who are essentially lucky at birth. Lucky to be genetically gifted, and lucky to have been born in circumstances where that genetic luck could be exploited. Originally posted by Edrick Where exactly did this argument come from? From this exchange; originally posted by Illusionsaregrander But women when allowed have contributed much.

One could look at what we have and say, "oh how great it all is, and all created by men," or one could look around and say, "we have only half what we could have had, had half the worlds geniuses not been denied education for a couple thousand years or better." then you said, "When Allowed" is a hilarious statement. to which I replied; originally posted by Illusionsaregrander Is it really? So, you think that the reason there were no great advances in mathematics from the European barbarian hordes prior to the Romans invading means that northern Europeans were intellectually inferior to men from the Mediterranean and Middle East? Or do you have some idea that having access to the work done by others, coupled with the ability to use writing and numerical systems created by others is a plus when doing your own work? Because if you want to make the argument that all Europeans are intellectually inferior to those from the Mediterranean area and Middle East, we will have a different sort of argument. Originally posted by Edrick IT sure is good that the United States was "Allowed" to separate from the British Empire, and form its own nation... oh Wait..

originally posted by Illusionsaregrander What, precisely, does revolution have to do in any way with education and the access to it? Again, verbal game playing on your part. You are well aware of what was said. As evidenced by the following; Originally posted by Edrick You are presuming that women were denied access to education. They were. Prove they were not. I personally dont think it is even worth while to prove they were, it is such a matter or historical record that the question itself is disingenuous. So I will place the burden of proof upon you. Either show evidence that women had access to education in maths and science equal to males throughout history, or concede the argument. Originally posted by Edrick While MOST ALL of humanity has been denied access to higher learning. Very true. But the small percentage that were educated were almost exclusively male, and this was true for centuries. This is particularly true of math and science. Prove otherwise. Originally posted by Edrick Those that WANTED to learn, did not beg and plead at the foot of their masters, they TOOK it, and did the work themselves. Citation needed please.

And just to spare us all the silliness of your pretending you forgot the argument, I will requote this; originally posted by IllusionsaregranderAnd if there are, what does this mean? Does it somehow diminish female genius, or female intellect if there are 5 male geniuses and only 4 females? Or 10 males and 8 females? Is a male with an IQ of 100 somehow better than a female with an IQ of 148, simply because there are more male geniuses? I guess I just dont see your point. What is your point? Originally posted by Edrick My point, is that High Intelligence is more a male specialty than a female specialty, BECAUSE women are more average in intelligence, while men are more varied in intelligence. There are more Male Geniuses than Female Geniuses. Circular argumentation. So proving there are more male geniuses proves there are more male geniuses. Very clever. By the same logic, being an idiot is also a male specialty. Ok, so its a given, there are more male morons and geniuses than female morons and geniuses.

There are still female morons and geniuses, soooo........................what? Originally posted by Edrick I am arguing that Men *ON THE WHOLE* have more intellectual capability to forward civilization than women do. And, they also *ON THE WHOLE* have more intellectual capability to "reverse" civilization than women do. Whats the bottom line here? Besides the circular argument, that there are more male geniuses, therefore there are more male geniuses, what does this mean? How should this be treated? Does this say something meaningful about how we should live? Behave? Im not clear why this is pertinent. Originally posted by Edrick It was not my intention to "School" you in this topic, I was just glad that someone was finally acknowledging this fact. Thank you. -Edrick No problem. I am not a feminist, I am a humanist. Personally, although I recognize that there is real evidence that "more males x" or "more females y" I am also aware that this is pretty meaningless information at the individual level. And, I personally feel that it is intellectually lazy to rely on things like race, gender, etc., to make broad sweeping generalizations.

reply to post by Illusionsaregrander Ok, so I need to prove that women have historically not been given credit for their contributions to science simply because men have had the power to give credit as they see fit. Easy. Lise Meitner. So... riddle me this... How did you find out about this, if her contributions were kept out of history? And, on another note... lets not go by the standard of the nobel prize... Obama was awarded one for peace, after all. That would be impossible. They have not. Whether or not they COULD have is another issue. Indeed. Nor have they had anything nearly approaching equal access to education, or the right to work outside of the home. Lack of equal contribution could mean lack of ability, inherently, or it could be lack of opportunity. Which do you suppose it is? This is a good statement, and question, for it proves that you are not IMMEDIATELY contributing the lack of women inventors to "Oppression" You keep the possibility open, but you do not suggest that it is the only factor. One thing that you are not thinking of, is Women themselves.

The truth of the matter is, Most women do not WANT to dabble in inventing, and advanced mathematics, particle physics, etc... A higher portion of MEN are drawn to these fields, regardless of the availability of education, than women. So, take that information, incorporate it into your perspective, and recompute. No, actually it isnt. What does "forwarding" society mean to you? Yes, perhaps an explanation of my word "Forwarding" is appropriate. Advances in scientific knowledge that aid in the survival of all humans, from agriculture to medicine to electricity to transportation. Things that not just ANY IDIOT with reproductive organs and a pulse could accomplish. Men by and large have gotten the glory. Not all of it... but a great deal of it. They are credited with the forwarding of our technology. That is because they did. But this overlooks the vast numbers of men and women that had to be relegated to "support operations" to afford this privileged class of mostly males the opportunity (leisure) to pursue philosophy, and all its offspring, math, engineering and science. This is the same argument that Gorman91 was making.... that Einsteins wife was responsible for his contributions to Science.

Are you sure you want to go down this slippery slope? Or do you think that it is better to give credit to those who accomplished the feats we are talking about, as opposed to the guy who built his house? None of what we have today would have happened without all of us, male/female, leisured/working class, and it is sort of arrogant to give all the credit to those who had both talent and opportunity to sit down and make the connections. Are you claiming that there was never a "Privileged" female class with access to this educational material? (The wives of wealthy industrialists for example?) Because that would necessarily disprove your assertions that only men have had the leisure time in which to contemplate. No, indeed, when we look at history, most of these "Privileged" women were more concerned with "Social" aspects of life, than scientific pursuits. They had the opportunity, they did not use it. The person who is most instrumental in creating the society we have today is the person, (or persons) whomever they were, male or female or both, who figured out how to domesticate plants.

Agriculture is the one invention that made all the rest of this possible, and that person(s) is lost to us forever. I dont think we should take so narrow a view of progress that we give all the glory to those who are essentially lucky at birth. Yes, this is the EXACT same argument that I had with Gorman91, to which I replied.... Well lets just attribute everything to adam. (The biblical First man) Your argument suffers from a logical fallacy known as "Moving the Goalpost", an argument in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded. They were. Prove they were not. I personally dont think it is even worth while to prove they were, it is such a matter or historical record that the question itself is disingenuous. Is it? There have been MANY privileged women in society that had access to this information, which I have already covered. They did not CHOSE to advance the knowledge of man, they chose to construct social networks and the like. So I will place the burden of proof upon you. Either show evidence that women had access to education in maths and science equal to males throughout history, or concede the argument.

Well, Marie Curie (7 November 1867 – 4 July 1934)... the much lauded discoverer of Radium, was a classically educated Chemist. And that was before the "Equal Rights" movement. Tabitha Babbit invented the Circular Saw in 1812. Lucy Stone was one of the first women in the united states to earn a collage degree, in the 1830's In Sparta, the Agoge was the name for an educational institution. Its origins are thought to be between the 7th and 6th century BC, for both men and women. Consequently... Abraham Lincoln's formal education consisted of about 18 months of schooling, but he was largely self-educated and an avid reader. Do I need to continue, or have I made my point? Circular argumentation. So proving there are more male geniuses proves there are more male geniuses. That is what the data indicates... yes. Very clever. By the same logic, being an idiot is also a male specialty. Yes, that is also what the data indicates.

Ok, so its a given, there are more male morons and geniuses than female morons and geniuses. There are still female morons and geniuses, soooo........................what? The heights of brilliance, and the lows of brutish stupidity, are the majority domain of men. Stupidity does not forward society.... but genius does. There are more Male Geniuses than Female Geniuses, THUS, men are more responsible for "Forwarding" society. (As per my previous definition of "Forwarding") And, they also *ON THE WHOLE* have more intellectual capability to "reverse" civilization than women do. Reverse civilization? Yes, I suppose you are right. we DO have nuclear weapons. That has not happened yet though, so I do not see what your point is. Whats the bottom line here? Besides the circular argument, that there are more male geniuses, therefore there are more male geniuses, what does this mean? IT is not a circular argument. The statement that "There are more male geniuses than female geniuses" is proven by the inherent variance of the distribution of intelligence in the population of males, as opposed to the population of females.

I fail to see how reading a FACT is a circular argument. Im not clear why this is pertinent. Modern civilization that surrounds you, is not a product of stupidity or averages... It is a product of Genius. That is VERY pertinent. No problem. I am not a feminist, I am a humanist. Personally, although I recognize that there is real evidence that "more males x" or "more females y" I am also aware that this is pretty meaningless information at the individual level. On the individual level, it is NEAR meaningless... this is true. But I am not speaking of the individual level. And, I personally feel that it is intellectually lazy to rely on things like race, gender, etc., to make broad sweeping generalizations. It's ok if you FEEL that way... it does not make it true. -Edrick Originally posted by Edrick By every metric we currently have to determine intelligence, men outperform women, on the whole. Well, this I will have to take issue with. Men perform better in math on SATs. That is a fact. This does not mean they outperform women in math course work. It means they test better.

The lack of an overall gender difference among Chinese students may also be a function of a cultural belief in hard work, rather than innate ability, as the basis for academic achievement. In my eighth grade survey, I found a strong belief in education and in diligence: 50% of respondents strongly agreed with the statement “there is no future without a good education,” and 94% chose “hard work” as the most important factor for academic success. In contrast, Stevenson and colleagues (1990) found that American parents and children tended to believe that achievement in mathematics depends on innate ability. Conclusion Although reasons for the math-gender gap among the very best students remain unclear, the data (no mean gender-math gap among Chinese students on the College Entrance Examination)point to societal (cultural beliefs, parents expectations, rigorous national curriculum, and well- trained teachers) conditions as the cause of the mean gender gap in the SAT-Math scores among American students. To make the leap from better performance on tests to better performance overall is unwarranted. Other studies have shown that the gap does not create a grade difference. In other words, the gap in SAT scores does not reliably predict performance in terms of grades in the course.

There are several theories as to why this is, stereotype threat may be lowering womens SAT's, or women may simply study harder in classes, but lets be clear that the gap in SAT scores only means what it means. That males tend to outperform females on SATs in math. Mind you I am not arguing that there are not MORE male math geniuses, but the SAT gap itself may be much ado about very little. Regardless whether it is inherent gift, or increased confidence that causes males to perform better on SATs, women seem to be able to make up for it in practical terms, in their performance in class. Originally posted by Edrick (Edit: Perhaps a better way of putting it is that men are more CAPABLE of High intelligence than women) I am not sure about the word capable, but I accept that you are struggling to find an appropriate word to use here. I would bear in mind, however, that the same point difference, (roughly 5 points) found between males and females also exists between Europeans and Asians, in the favor of Asians. Would you argue that Asians have done more to forward civilization than Europeans? Or do you approach race differences in IQ scores differently than you do sex differences?

Or is it possible that there are other factors playing out, and the scores may not be measuring everything they are meant to? (Or measuring some things they are not meant to) link Edrick you are arguably one of the very best debaters ATS has ever seen as well as one of its more disciplined and intelligent minds… However, I must now question your wisdom in such a way that pretty much defeats every last argument good bad or ugly on this thread. While exhaustive studies have been made on whether men are more evolved through the fact that the Y chromosome seems to be developing faster…there is a reason for that development that in reality not only explains the continued evolution of it but why every argument in this thread to support any notion of men being superior in any way or field will be defeated. It is a KNOWN fact that it is IMPOSSIBLE to ever WIN an argument with a WOMAN! The Y chromosome is simply evolving faster in an utterly futile attempt for men to FINALLY WIN THE FIRST ARGUMENT with a woman. The fact that you are 11 pages into this thread, pretty much proves that argument is not going to be won today or anytime soon. You are still my hero though!

[edit on 17/1/10 by ProtoplasmicTraveler] reply to post by Illusionsaregrander Well, this I will have to take issue with. Men perform better in math on SATs. That is a fact. This does not mean they outperform women in math course work. It means they test better. I am also speaking of IQ tests. Thank you for finding this quote by the way: Although reasons for the math-gender gap among the very best students remain unclear... To make the leap from better performance on tests to better performance overall is unwarranted. No, it is not unwarranted... Tests are a metric that we use to determine overall ability. The interesting thing is: These tests scores are averages of all students. We have already agreed that men have more Stupids, and more Smarts among them, as the average variance of men's intellect is greater than females. The disconnect between the Math gender Gap among the "Very Best" students reflects this, as only the "Smart" men and women are compared in these studies.

Since the amount of SMART men, is greater than the amount of SMART women (And the intelligence variance of men shows that the smartest men are smarter than the smartest women), then it stands to reason that the gender gap in the brightest students would favor males. The difference is that you are no longer counting all of the "Stupid" men, that drag down the average. I am not sure about the word capable, but I accept that you are struggling to find an appropriate word to use here. I would bear in mind, however, that the same point difference, (roughly 5 points) found between males and females also exists between Europeans and Asians, in the favor of Asians. Would you argue that Asians have done more to forward civilization than Europeans? Asians have discovered MANY things... Gunpowder, the Compass, Stirrups, The number Zero, etc, etc, etc... I would not doubt that it could be the case, so I would not argue against it. Or do you approach race differences in IQ scores differently than you do sex differences? No, I approach them roughly the same. The average IQ of China is greater than the United States.

(Hong Kong, I believe has the highest average IQ in the world) Or is it possible that there are other factors playing out, and the scores may not be measuring everything they are meant to? No, the tests ARE measuring everything that they are MEANT to... Spacial Relationships, Mathematical Ability and Understanding, Problem solving ability, etc, etc, etc. -Edrick reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler Edrick you are arguably one of the very best debaters ATS has ever seen as well as one of its more disciplined and intelligent minds… Thank you very much. However, I must now question your wisdom in such a way that pretty much defeats every last argument good bad or ugly on this thread. It is a KNOWN fact that it is IMPOSSIBLE to ever WIN an argument with a WOMAN! You have a Good point... but I, like my fellow explorers into uncharted waters before me... would like to suggest that NOTHING is impossible! I love that song... You are still my hero though! IT is my Duty... Nay... My Privilege! Thank You. So... riddle me this... How did you find out about this, if her contributions were kept out of history?

I knew you were going to say that, which is why I chose her. You are intent on claiming that lack of proof that something was means that the thing could not actually be. And, as I said, lack of evidence to the contrary is not proof OF anything, except lack of proof. I also knew you would not take the time to actually read the articles linked to, so I quoted what you needed to understand that. But, I will go over it again for the slower children in class. Lise Meitner just so happened to have her work go uncredited at a point in time where women were gaining rights in Europe and the US. So, her contributions were first deliberately underplayed by her male colleagues, and she was left out of the Noble prize, and later scientists trying to rectify the treatment of women in the Sciences repaired that error to some degree. Had the same incident happened 50 or 100 years earlier, we would be right back in your little mind game of, "there is no proof, so it must not have happened." The only possible way to show you the "proof" you demanded was to find someone who had first had credit stolen then restored. I did that. Accept it.

Nor have they had anything nearly approaching equal access to education, or the right to work outside of the home. Lack of equal contribution could mean lack of ability, inherently, or it could be lack of opportunity. Which do you suppose it is? Originally posted by Edrick A higher portion of MEN are drawn to these fields, regardless of the availability of education, than women. So, take that information, incorporate it into your perspective, and recompute. Ok, that was easy, done. Now you factor out patriarchal attitudes and conditioning and recompute. Originally posted by Edrick Advances in scientific knowledge that aid in the survival of all humans, from agriculture to medicine to electricity to transportation. Things that not just ANY IDIOT with reproductive organs and a pulse could accomplish. As I noted in an earlier post, Asians have the same IQ point advantage over Europeans, that American males have over American females. Do you think this is why Asian men have done the most over all to forward society? Or do you think there is another reason they invented the internal combustion engine, or electric lightbulbs, or any of the other things that makes our society great. Oh wait, they didnt invent those things. Hmmmm.

Maybe there are more factors at play than simply IQ points. Nah, thats ridiculous. Originally posted by Edrick This is the same argument that Gorman91 was making.... that Einsteins wife was responsible for his contributions to Science. You are certainly not making a good case for your own genius if you confuse the argument that all human beings in a society have to create the circumstances that allow the forwarding a society to a specific argument that Einsteins wife was responsible for his work. A general alone does not win a war. Or do you think they could? Originally posted by Edrick Are you sure you want to go down this slippery slope? Actually I dont. Seeing the big picture isnt easy for everyone, and it is especially hard when someone is intellectually dishonest. Originally posted by Edrick Are you claiming that there was never a "Privileged" female class with access to this educational material? I asked you to show me one, and you havent, therefore, by your own brand of logic, there could not have been. No evidence=non-existence, remember?

Originally posted by Edrick No, indeed, when we look at history, most of these "Privileged" women were more concerned with "Social" aspects of life, than scientific pursuits. Citation needed. Other wise its all hot air. Originally posted by Edrick Well lets just attribute everything to adam. (The biblical First man) Yes, because Adam is so obviously historical fact. Originally posted by Edrick Your argument suffers from a logical fallacy known as "Moving the Goalpost", an argument in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded. Actually, that is not my argument. I have not moved any goalposts, and I challenge you to support that claim in quotes or retract it. Originally posted by Edrick Well, Marie Curie (7 November 1867 – 4 July 1934)... the much lauded discoverer of Radium, was a classically educated Chemist. And that was before the "Equal Rights" movement. Tabitha Babbit invented the Circular Saw in 1812. Tabitha Babbit was a Shaker, and they had a much higher regard for females and their abilities. en.wikipedia.org...

The nature of the Shaker religion valued women and men equally with one another in religious leadership. All authority in the church was hierarchical, with women at the top level of that hierarchy, though at each level women and men shared equal responsibility. Originally posted by Edrick Lucy Stone was one of the first women in the united states to earn a collage degree, in the 1830's And why was that? Because no women before those first to graduate were smart enough to graduate? Or did they all just choose other things? And she too is hardly an argument for the ease at which women were able to obtain equal education. en.wikipedia.org... Stone and Brown both took part in Oberlin's rhetoric class, but women were not allowed to speak in public, supposedly because of specific passages in the Bible which forbade it. Women studying rhetoric were required to do so by listening to the men debate. Originally posted by Edrick In Sparta, the Agoge was the name for an educational institution. Its origins are thought to be between the 7th and 6th century BC, for both men and women.

Not according to Wikipedia, According to folklore agoge was introduced by the semi-mythical Spartan law-giver Lycurgus but its origins are thought to be between the 7th and 6th century BC[3][4] when the regime trained male citizens from the ages of seven to twenty-nine.[1] Originally posted by Edrick Do I need to continue, or have I made my point? Oh no, you neednt continue. You have made a point. Originally posted by Edrick The heights of brilliance, and the lows of brutish stupidity, are the majority domain of men. Very few men, and very few women. Slightly less few men. Originally posted by Edrick There are more Male Geniuses than Female Geniuses, THUS, men are more responsible for "Forwarding" society. There are fewer European geniuses than Asian geniuses, according to IQ tests, thus Asians are more responsible for the forwarding of society. Originally posted by Edrick

Question: Which lady physicist was part of the team that discovered nuclear fission for which her colleague Otto Hahn won the Nobel and is often mentioned as the most glaring example of womens scientific achievement overlooked by the Nobel committee?
Answer: Lise Meitner